UK Defence Spending

Debate between Lord Beamish and James Sunderland

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

The debate has been animated and enjoyable. It is a great pleasure to speak from the Back Benches from a position of unequivocal strength. As someone who would ordinarily have been critical of defence spending at any time over the past three decades, I admit that today I cannot be. Why? This year, the Government announced an unprecedented multi-year settlement for defence.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is not.

[James Sunderland]

Yes, it is. It offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernise our armed forces.

Throughout my 27-year career in uniform, I lost count of the times I was told that I could not do something, whether it was going on an exercise, organising adventure training, buying trucks or getting the latest equipment. I was always told by the bean counters that it could not be done. It was all doom and gloom, but now it is different. If anything, part of me wishes I were still in uniform because I believe that defence is well placed to take advantage of the excellent settlement.

Let us look at the facts. First, the deal for defence is worth an extra £24.1 billion over the next four years. It is a huge increase, unlike anything we have seen in recent history.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

No, it isn’t.

[James Sunderland]

Yes, it is. It will exceed not only the manifesto commitment—

[Mr Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman not keep repeating that Front-Bench or central-party pump-out? He should look at the Library note. I explained the increase. He says he would like to be there now, but I am not sure he would get the opportunity were he a young man wanting to join the armed forces now, because there are nearly 55,000 fewer people because of the Conservative Government. The budget today is still lower than it was in 2009. Even with the increase, the £13 billion black hole in the equipment budget will not be filled. The idea of painting this rosily might get him on the Front Bench, but he should look at the facts and be independent—which he usually is on a lot of the issues.

[James Sunderland]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but of course he is wrong. I will explain why—because the figures speak for themselves. Have a look at the maths! He is also wrong, because I believe that the offer right now for our armed forces is better than ever before. If I were 21 or 22 years old, I would want to do exactly the same thing that I did almost 30 years ago. I am proud of my service and of the fact that the Government support defence. So, £6.6 million has been invested in research and development, generating £25.3 billion a year for the UK economy and directly employing 133,000 people across the country. Defence spending is critical to levelling up, and we are doing it—fact.

The recent Command Paper “Defence in a Competitive Age” reflects a balanced budget. The MOD now has a fantastic opportunity to balance its red line, to get above the line—

[Mr Jones]

It doesn’t!

[James Sunderland]

Yes, it does. The UK armed forces will become a threat-focused integrated force with a continued shift in thinking across land, sea, air, space and cyber, while also being financially sustainable for the first time in decades. If I may say so, the Conservative Government over the past 10 years have spent much of their time putting right the mess that Labour left this country in 2010.

Defence will spend £85 billion on equipment over the next four years. Shipbuilding investment will double over the life of this Parliament, rising to more than £1.7 billion a year. This will support the MOD in its commitment to grow the Royal Navy surface fleet to 24 frigates and destroyers by 2030. Admittedly, we need more, but of course we have to balance the budget as well.

Recently, too, the Procurement Minister launched the new defence and security industrial strategy, which benefits British industry to a superb degree. It is about jobs, livelihoods and, above all, export markets. The new strategy allows us to mandate UK content in all our defence contracts in a way that we could not do under the auspices of the European Union.

[Mr Jones]

Nonsense!

[James Sunderland]

It is a fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is just wrong on that. Military contracts were excluded from any EU law. The only individuals who chose to put a military contract out to international tender, hiding behind the EU, were this Government, when they were arguing to put FSS out to international competition, even though they could have designated a warship, as did every other country in Europe—France, Spain, Italy and everyone else—and built it at home.

[James Sunderland]

Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My clear understanding as someone who has spent time working in Defence Equipment and Support and in the MOD is that European Union legislation prevented this country from preferring UK industry. We are now not beholden to the European Union. We can place contracts with whom we want, and we are seeing it right now with our new strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Sunderland]

I reiterate my previous points on this. The Opposition can make as much noise as they want from the Back Benches, but the fact is this: under the new defence industrial strategy, it is absolutely clear that the MOD can purchase equipment from whom it wants in a way that has not been possible over the past 10 to 40 years.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Yeah, American.

[James Sunderland]

Perhaps. But it is also about balancing the need for the right equipment against the need to make sure that we look after our nascent defence manufacturing industry. I believe that the balance is right today in a way that has not been possible before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I am not precious about this. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in terms of wanting to buy the best kit for our armed forces. May I ask him why, in all those Government-to Government contracts—on Wedgetail, on Apache and now on Brimstone—there is no work share, not even in terms of allowing ongoing maintenance for those things? Why have we just given that out and exported UK jobs to the United States, if this Government are so committed to ensuring that we have a vibrant UK defence policy?

[James Sunderland]

It is my clear understanding that the MOD’s responsibility is to purchase the best kit. This is about supporting our soldiers, airmen, sailors and so on. This is about a balanced decision made by the MOD, on advice from DE&S, about buying the right kit. In my humble view, we are in a new era. This is post Brexit and post EU. This is a new era where the Government have the autonomy, as never before, to make the decisions that they want to make. The post-Brexit era gives us that opportunity—that incentive—to look after British industry, which, in my view, is what we must do right now. In terms of what has gone before, that has happened. As of now, under this Government, from 2021, I am absolutely clear that our new strategy gives us the opportunity to do the right thing with the kit that we buy.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and James Sunderland

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

After that speech, who on earth would be a Defence Minister? It is a great privilege to speak during Armed Forces Week. We have a clear responsibility in this place to support Her Majesty’s forces, so the timing is neat. As Chair of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I am familiar with the Bill. It is a good Bill, but may I commend to hon. Members the Select Committee report and the subsequent statement made in this House on 22 April? Both were fully objective and the result of painstaking analysis and debate within the Select Committee. Yes, we did not agree on every issue. In fact, we did not agree on many issues.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It was remiss of me in my contribution not to thank the hon. Member for chairing the Select Committee. He got thrown in at the deep end at the last minute, but I think all members of the Select Committee thought he did an excellent job and ensured that everyone had their say. May I put on record my thanks, and I am sure that of other Members, to him for the way in which he chaired the Select Committee?

[James Sunderland]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman —my friend—for those kind words. It was a real pleasure to chair that superb Committee. The report was pretty good. I believe it to be a framework for what lies ahead and perhaps even a template for what we do with this standing legislation in five years’ time. We are progressing all the time, and the future looks good.

I want to discuss two areas: the statutory guidance and the latest amendments to the Bill. First, I thank the Minister for his written response to the Select Committee report and for the draft statutory guidance, which we have now got. We must acknowledge that the covenant is already with us. It has been signed by the vast majority of councils all over the UK, including in Northern Ireland. In fact, it has its 10th birthday at this point in time, so what better present could there be than to bring it into statute?

The door is already open for the statutory guidance, and it is a good bit of work so far. I welcome the fact that it places a due regard on the placeholder, that it recognises rightful outcomes, that it reflects the unique sacrifices and obligations on HM forces and that it places a legal obligation on the delivery of health, accommodation and local support from councils. It also provides examples of good practice and pragmatic guidelines on how that is to be provided.

I note that prescriptive performance targets are still absent, but it may be that it is impossible to apply any meaningful metrics and tools to this area. I do not believe that councils are in any doubt about what is expected of them after 10 years, but—it is a big but—it may be that guidance is still needed on how they will be held to account if they do not meet their obligations. I read with interest the line in the guidance that:

“Covenant duty does not mandate public specific delivery outcomes or advantageous treatment of the Armed Forces Community. It only mandates that consideration takes place…when exercising certain functions”.

That worries me, as the local authority complaints process does not cut it in terms of what I believe is still needed. Simply inviting disaffected personnel to contact their MP fills me with horror. I urge the Minister to please look again at this, dig deeper and do the right thing.

I turn to the amendments. I am comfortable with what the Government have tabled, and I want to talk to a handful of the others. New clause 1 would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for any current or previously serving members of the UK armed forces. Similarly, new clause 7 provides that foreign and Commonwealth veterans applying for indefinite leave to remain following four years of service will pay only the unit cost of an application.

I am clear in my mind that the Government have this key issue in hand, and I welcome the consultation recently announced by the MOD and the Home Office. I personally wish to see an amnesty for those F and C personnel who slip through the net, and I agree that it is right to abate the cost of visa fees as a function of time to incentivise longer service. As a former commanding officer of the largest and most diverse unit in the British Army, I say that is the right way to go, even though it may set a precedent for other Departments.

New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to establish a duty of care standards in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel. The MOD takes very seriously its duty of care for service personnel and veterans, and over the years it has established a comprehensive range of legal, pastoral, welfare and mental health support for service personnel and veterans. We have come a long way from the early days of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, with which I am very familiar. The covenant has also been enshrined in law, so I think that the new clause may be redundant at this point.

New clause 3 would require the Government to publish a report on changes to personnel numbers across all services and to detail the impact of reductions on operational capabilities. However, none of that is a closely guarded secret. The MOD recently published its Command Paper “Defence in a competitive age” and noted that the size of the Army would be reduced. I believe that that new clause is also redundant; the information is out there.

New clause 4 would require the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who are dismissed or forced to resign from the armed forces due to their sexuality and make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation. Restorative justice is difficult due to the policies that were legally enforceable at the time, but I am comfortable, for now, that the Government are making strides to tackle this, not least by restoring medals and engaging much more broadly with the LGBTQ+ community. That is absolutely the right thing to do.

As for new clause 6, the duty of care for alcohol, drugs and gambling disorders is already there. It is called good leadership—and also the covenant, which is being enshrined in law.

Lastly, new clause 8 is laudable, but we are not there yet. The new clause would create a representative body for the armed forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent its members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency. The Government have not been persuaded at this point that there is a requirement or a groundswell of support for a federation along the lines that have been suggested.

The interests of armed forces personnel are already represented through a range of mechanisms, not least, again, the chain of command. Furthermore, the Service Complaints Ombudsman provides impartial scrutiny of service complaints made by members of the UK armed forces regarding any aspect of their service life. However, for the Minister’s benefit, I would, in this case, welcome an independent body to provide additional rigour for service complaints. In my experience, service complaints are very awkward, and it may just be that taking them out of units and out of the chain of command is the right thing to do.



To conclude, one of the main criticisms of the Bill is that it does not go far enough, but as an ex-serviceman I refute that. Any new legislation has to be deliverable, proportionate, pragmatic and responsible, and has to attract the necessary due diligence and analysis, for it needs to consider the effect on those it relates to, and no Government can write cheques they cannot cash, as they have to maintain the fundamental ethos and integrity of the organisation itself. Our armed forces are pre-eminent in their field and must be afforded the autonomy they need to do their job. So this is about evolution, not revolution, and I believe that we will get there in due course through what the Select Committee has recommended.

I say to those who wish to turn this unique organisation into what they would wish it to be by clipping its wings, softening its operational capability and ignoring its hard edge or negating the importance of the chain of command: please be careful what you wish for.

Armed Forces Bill: Special Report

Debate between Lord Beamish and James Sunderland

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Today, the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee publishes its special report on the new Armed Forces Bill. It is my privilege to present it to the House. Getting to this point has taken significant effort right across Westminster, so it is my duty to express my gratitude to several key stakeholders. I thank first the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to make this statement, and the Speaker’s Office and the Ministry of Defence for all their staff support and advice, notably on the content and scope of the Bill. I also thank the 16 right hon. and hon. Members of the Committee for their contribution, humour and hard work. We broke new ground as the first Committee of the House to conduct line-by-line scrutiny of a Bill by virtual means and worked intensively in the build-up to that before Easter and during recess to hear from many witnesses. I humbly thank them for putting their trust in me by electing a new MP as Chair. I am proud to represent the 2019 intake at this statement.

I know that I speak for all Members by expressing my gratitude to those who contributed to our inquiry. Their depth of knowledge and professionalism was inspiring. Last but not least, I thank the Committee staff and wider technical teams for their support in the past few months, which has proved invaluable through both virtual and hybrid working. I make no apology for mentioning Ms Yohanna Sallberg and in particular, the presiding Clerk, Mr Matthew Congreve, whose contribution and guidance at the age of 24 have been truly outstanding.

The report, published earlier today, is the key output of the ad hoc Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. For those interested in the history, the requirement is a procedural anomaly harking back to the 1689 Bill of Rights. Every five years, a Bill must pass through Parliament thereby renewing the Armed Forces Act in statute and enabling the maintenance of standing forces in peacetime. Since 1961, the Bill has led to the creation of a unique hybrid Committee: technically a Select Committee with the power to summon witnesses and hear evidence, but also acting as a Public Bill Committee by scrutinising the legislation line by line. The Bill is not only essential to retaining and resourcing our armed forces but has come to serve as a checkpoint for what works and what is needed in statute.

The Committee was therefore appointed to scrutinise this important legislation. It has done so throughout the past few weeks, and it reported the Bill, unamended, back to the House last week. We inquired into specific areas of the Bill, focusing on the armed forces covenant, the service justice system and the service complaints system. We also explored additional areas, including diversity in the armed forces, healthcare and housing.

From the outset, the Committee welcomed the requirement to incorporate the armed forces covenant into law and noted that this change is important for service personnel, veterans and their families. We recognised some concerns on how the duty to have due regard to the covenant will work in practice, the current lack of prescribed outcomes for those entrusted with delivering it, and how the visions in the Bill apply to some areas of the covenant but not others. We also heard concerns about it only applying to some public bodies but not others. We therefore look forward to seeing the statutory guidance, which will be essential for informing public bodies of what is expected of them in applying the duty of due regard. We recommended that the Government conduct a review after two years on how this duty is operating in practice and that the annual report for the armed forces covenant should review its effectiveness and comment on future scope. We also recommended that the Defence Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), should conduct post-legislative scrutiny.

On the service justice system, the Committee found that the Bill demonstrates a commitment to improving the system. This, combined with non-statutory measures being implemented following the Lyons review, should ensure that it has the confidence of those who are subject to it, and also the wider public. We therefore welcome the efforts to reform the service justice system but recognise that some concerns linger on concurrent jurisdiction. We recommended that the Ministry of Defence work quickly to introduce the defence serious crime capability and ensure that clear protocols are in place to allow effective co-operation with civilian police forces and to agree jurisdiction.

Turning to the service complaints system, we welcome the efforts to speed up the process provided that the necessary safeguards remain in place to ensure fair and equal access to all. We found that the current processes do attract criticism, particularly in tackling delays to resolve cases, and we remain cognisant of the heavy workload being placed on individual officers and staff. We also supported the findings of the Wigston review and advised that the Ministry of Defence implement all of its policy recommendations.

On our additional areas of scrutiny, the Committee heard encouraging evidence that the experience of armed forces personnel with protected characteristics has vastly improved, but recognise that there is still more to be done. We welcomed the former Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), committing to

“find a mechanism of restorative justice” ––[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 31 March 2021; c. 94.]

for veterans dismissed due to their actual or perceived sexuality during the years of the ban on homosexuality in the armed forces. We asked that he report back to the House on progress within three months. We also support the important work of the Defence Sub-Committee on women in the armed forces, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton).

Furthermore, the Committee inquired into the provision of healthcare for veterans, particularly in mental health, and found it encouraging that the provision is getting better but recommended improvements in a number of areas and services. We sought to build on the important work of the Public Accounts Committee on service accommodation and found that the level of satisfaction for personnel and families living in service housing is still low. While work has been undertaken to improve this, we argued that better accommodation is an area that still needs prioritisation within the Ministry of Defence.

On the appointment and remit of our Committee, we found that the convention of committing the Armed Forces Bill to a Select Committee in addition to its usual Committee stage grants the Bill additional scrutiny. Our inquiry was, however, rather rushed due to compressed timelines, and we recommended that future Select Committees on armed forces Bills be given more time to complete their work. Overall, it was a real pleasure to work with hon. and right hon. Members from both sides of the House to deliver this important report. Consensus was achieved in most areas—no easy feat—and we recommended that the appointment of a Select Committee continues to be the convention for future armed forces Bills. I am grateful, again, to all my colleagues from all parties. Consensus is always persuasive and politics is far better for it.

Before I finish, I wish to remind Members of the underlying purpose of all this hard work. This House’s aspiration should be for Britain to maintain the best armed forces in the world and for this to be the best place in the world to be a veteran. Although there is much more to do, I believe we are getting there. We therefore pay tribute to our armed forces for their work, service and sacrifice, and this Bill is a vital part in our meeting our obligations to them. I look forward to working with all Members during later consideration of the Bill in this Chamber, and I commend this special report to the House.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who, although he said he is new, chaired this Committee excellently? Like him, I pay tribute to the staff who supported the Committee, and I also pay tribute to the witnesses who came before us. He said that this is a unique Committee. It meets every five years, and I think I have served on every one of these Bills for the past 20 years. This was a difficult one because of covid, but it also was not helped by the attitude of the Ministry of Defence on the statutory guidance. Likewise, and I will put this on the record, it was not helped by the attitude of the then Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). Does the hon. Member for Bracknell agree that what needs to change is that in future—the report mentions the length of time the Committee sits—a set period, for example, six months, should be provided for, in order to ensure that detailed scrutiny, which I do not think we did this time, can be guaranteed?

[James Sunderland]

For me, achieving this outcome was about consensus; it was about all members of the Committee coming together. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, because I know that in the Command Paper of 2008 the covenant was first mooted; it is a combination of Conservative, Labour, Scottish National party and other MPs who have made it happen today, although of course a Conservative Government have brought it in. I am happy that the report, as it stands, provides some solid recommendations for the future. I agree that a more consensual approach to a Bill such as this in the future might pay dividends.

Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and James Sunderland

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

[James Sunderland]

Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Lord Beamish and James Sunderland

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 21st January 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. That is why we need to get into the idea of the audit. As I said earlier, we basically need a level playing field for operators; we do not want one to have an advantage over another. We also need a clear picture of what we are asking in terms of the audit. On the point she makes regarding web services and the cloud, there is an issue there that I think is worth referring to. It links today’s Bill with the National Security and Investment Bill, which we were discussing yesterday. There was a lot of discussion around what we define as critical—a point she has already raised.

For yesterday’s Bill, the question was what is critical to national infrastructure—for example, a company that is developing software that is then acquired by a state that we deem is a security risk to us. If that equipment or software is being used in our telecommunications network, does that mean that the network is compromised, and how do we guard against that? There are provisions in the National Security and Investment Bill that enable the Government to stop the acquisition of companies that we consider vital to our national security, but unless we know that in advance, how will we make that decision?

If we have a situation where a small company is providing software for part of our critical national infrastructure for telecoms, how will that be joined up? How will we be able to use the provisions in the National Security and Investment Bill, so that the Business Secretary can block the sale? Likewise, how do we get that connection? We can do that only by the Minister and Ofcom having a very clear indication from day one—I do not think it will be possible from day one, but from some time into it—what is in our network, not just now, but into the future. That will be important.

That brings us to the role of Ofcom. We have seen a development of regulators in this country. I am not a great fan of regulators, because I think it is a way for Ministers to palm off their responsibilities to third parties and then stand back and saying, “If it all goes wrong, it is nothing to do with me, guv—it is these independent organisations.” A long time ago—perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned—the General Post Office used to be responsible for this type of thing, and I am currently reading the excellent new history of GCHQ that has come out, which I recommend to everyone. It is fascinating to read about some of the challenges—things that apply to this Bill—such as, in the first world war, what was conceived as national security and who was responsible for it. Was it the GPO, the military or someone else?

How will Ofcom be able to look at a network and say, “Yes, we are satisfied that there is nothing in there that is a matter of national security”? They do not know. I do not think for one minute that we are going to have a situation whereby this Government or any future Government will suddenly throw so much money at Ofcom that a huge army of inspectors will be climbing up poles and going into operators’ offices to check source codes and so on. That is not going to happen.

From a practical point of view, the operators will have to be responsible for providing that information to Ofcom. Whether it is in the Bill or in the guidance, it must be clear what is expected of operators. It is no good looking back in hindsight and saying, “We should have done that,” when something happens. The operators will just say, “You did not tell us we had to do that,” or, “We didn’t know about that.” It has to be very clear, to prevent a competitive advantage between different companies, that there is one standard. They also have to know what we are asking for. Then, taking the telecoms hat off and putting the national security hat on, from the Government’s point of view, that needs to be very clear as well, because we need to be reassured that the components and software in those networks, now and in the future, are not a national security risk.

That brings us to an issue that I have already raised. I am not someone who thinks that every time we go to bed at night, we should look under the bed to see whether the Chinese are there, unlike some members of the China Research Group, but there is an issue about the way in which China will look at supply chains as a way of getting access, for two reasons. The first is national security. The second is commercial reasons—dominating the market, which is what China has done with Huawei. How will we identify that, without having some type of audit process? I do not think that everything to do with China is bad, but a huge number of the components in all our mobile phones in our pockets today will have come from China, including Ericsson and Nokia hardware.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s logic. He talks a lot of sense, which is great. I am really intrigued by his insistence that the Government place these obligations on the National Cyber Security Centre and Ofcom. In my humble view, and knowing how those organisations work, it is likely to be the case that the Joint Forces Intelligence Group, GCHQ or the National Cyber Security Centre inform Government where there have been transgressions of security and breaches. I am intrigued by the counter-logic with where I think we need to be.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Lord Beamish and James Sunderland

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 21st January 2021 Public Bill Committees

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Given that most MPs do not fully understand what the ISC does, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Government are probably best placed to make the decision on this particular matter?

[Mr Jones]

No, I do not. I know the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, and I actually quite like him, but what is he arguing for? A dictatorship? That the Executive should decide everything? Knowing you, Mr Hollobone, you would take a very dim view of that. You have form on holding the Executive to account—all Governments.

The ISC is there to look at information and provide parliamentary scrutiny. As for the nature of the information we receive, we have all the clearances from top secret going up to STRAP, including STRAP 3, which is intelligence that has a limited circulation and people have to be added to the list. We have access to that as well, which allows us to consider that information.

Our annual reports, which we supply to Parliament, can be debated by Parliament. We can produce reports. For example, most recently, there was the Russia report, which highlighted what the Government had not done rather than what it should have been doing. The contention from the Cabinet Office is that if information goes to the ISC, it is in the public domain. That is a little bit insulting. We do public reports, which have information that can be put into the public domain, but there are always secret annexes that go to the Prime Minister and are not made public, which allow us to question decisions and highlight issues that we think the Prime Minister should take notice of. It is a valuable mechanism for scrutiny.

The argument that will come from the Cabinet Office is that DCMS is not covered. It is. The memorandum of understanding says:

“The ISC is the only committee of Parliament that has regular access to protectively marked information that is sensitive for national security reasons: this means that only the ISC is in a position to scrutinise effectively the work of the Agencies and of those parts of”

the Government

“whose work is directly concerned with intelligence and security matters.”

I accept that DCMS’s day-to-day work is not covered in the description of national security, whether or not this is an issue of concern to individuals. I think it is. There could be an argument as to why the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport got this legislation and whether it should perhaps be put in another Department. I do not agree with that, because I think the general issue of telecoms fits well into the Department’s wider briefs.

Increasingly, a number of Departments are getting involved in, or taking responsibility for, areas that involve national security. BEIS and the National Security and Investment Bill is a good example.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Lord Beamish and James Sunderland

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th January 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

Q Can I ask for your thoughts about Ofcom being the regulator of security? Has it got the capacity or culture to ensure the security of the network, particularly in light of the ISC’s 2013 report on critical national infrastructure? That suggested that civil servants did not even tell Ministers about security threats. Would it not be better to place security with an agency that is responsible for security, rather than with a regulator that has a wide range of responsibilities?

Professor Webb: I think that has already been mooted. I doubt Ofcom has that capability at the moment. In principle, it could acquire it and hire people who have that expertise, but the need for secrecy in many of these areas is always going to mean that we are better off with one centre of excellence, where the threats are analysed, assessed and understood. We have that, of course, in NCSC.

NCSC would advise Ofcom, perhaps at a high level. Perhaps they would not need to detail exactly what the issue was, but they could talk to Ofcom about the mitigation, and Ofcom could be the entity that performs the proportionality of understanding whether a threat needs to be addressed and to what extent, in the midst of all the other things. That is how I would arrange these organisations.

Emily Taylor: Thank you for this question, which goes to both the capabilities and the culture. With the capabilities, as I have said in earlier remarks, Ofcom is going to need to upskill. In reality, as Professor Webb has said, they are going to be reliant on expert advice from NCSC, at least in the medium term, until there is a significant transfer of skills and technology, and in terms of the need for secrecy and a broader view.

Ofcom’s historical role has been much less interventionist than is foreseen in this piece of legislation. Those cultural changes go deep into the organisation and into the character of the people who work there. Cultural change is always difficult and takes time, so I would not underestimate the challenge.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Q This is a very explicit question to finish with, but could I ask both of you whether, from a security perspective, you agree with the decision to kick out high-risk vendors from the network? If so, why?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Q I do not disagree with you about the balancing act between security and economic development, which will be important. This Bill leaves it with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who is not a natural fit for security, and there will clearly be tension between the two. Do you therefore think that these key decisions—not the actual work on them—should not be vested with the Secretary of State, but should perhaps have the sign-off of the Cabinet and the NSC?

Dr Drew: I would agree with you. I believe that the decision needs to be taken on a security level first, because insecurity and the risk of a poorly made decision would have negative impacts on the economic outputs as well. I am not certain that where it is currently vested in this Bill is the best place for it, but I also believe that transparency is the other balancing component here. I have had some conversations with one of the companies mentioned quite predominantly in this literature, and their biggest press is that they feel that decisions are being made with a lack of transparency and a lack of technical justification, and that it is all politics. The best way to solve that is through transparency.

[James Sunderland]

Q Dr Drew, as a graduate of King’s College, it is great to have you with us. The Bill as currently written provides the Government with unprecedented new security powers. Might this in some way perhaps disincentivise new entries to the market?

Dr Drew: It potentially could, depending on the type of company that you are attempting to incentivise. It would have a different effect on those potentially two or more categories. If you take one category to be pre-existing companies that previously have not operated within the UK, such as NEC from Japan, they are likely not to be put off to such a great extent—they have already had to deal with some level of security commitment within their normal markets. However, I suggest that it could be more of a barrier to entry for the smaller companies that we are attempting to encourage to get into this market. Emerging companies would find a culture of components and cultural risk to how they view their work, as well as the technical and financial cost of meeting the new standards. Yes, I believe there would be an impact, but it would be different between types of vendors that you are seeking to encourage.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and James Sunderland

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland]

I agree very much. The bottom line is that veterans I have spoken to over the years are worried about the next knock at the door. I believe that the Bill will give certainty to the current generation and to who those come afterwards.

To tackle the conjecture, if I may, the Bill does not absolve any member of Her Majesty’s forces from the obligation to operate within the law. It does not impact on criminal investigations and it does not create, or come close to creating, any de facto immunity for service personnel, as the few bad apples will always be brought to justice. As for the downright fabrication, the Bill does not place our troops on a collision course with the Geneva convention or The Hague, and it does not break international law.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It does! Read the Bill.

[James Sunderland]

I have read the Bill.

In fact, I cannot think of a more robust institution than the MOD for upholding the law, and the UK has a proud record of overseas military service which is to be applauded, not undermined.

As for part 2, I comfortable that the six-year long stop of civil claims for personal injury and death is about right given that 94% of all claims since 2007 have been settled within five years. However, we have Committee stage to unpick that further if we need to. I also understand that the long stop applies to the point at which legacy issues, such as hearing loss, PTSD and physical illness first come to light, therefore providing a safety net.

Most important for me, the Bill requires that, when making legal judgments, the courts must consider the unique circumstances of overseas operations and any adverse effect on our personnel. Those who have served will know that warfighting is dangerous and terrifying, with confusion all around, friends falling beside you, sweat dripping into your eyes, the ground exploding, people moving in every direction, images of family flashing before your eyes and abject terror everywhere. What would you do? Fortunately, the training is good, the loyalty and camaraderie in HM forces are unparalleled and our soldiers do operate within the law of armed conflict. I salute all those who got closer to danger than I did.

Despite what others would have us think, the Bill does not provide blanket immunity for soldiers to commit war crimes. Indeed, the suggestion in some of what I have read that the best trained and best led armed forces in the world are somehow predisposed to inflicting torture or sex crimes on operations is ridiculous. It is deeply offensive to those who serve, and the people who peddle this nonsense just need to stop. [An Hon. Member: “Nobody has said it.”] I have seen it.

To those who seek to judge our veterans after many years of service from the sanctity of their courtroom or the comfort of their armchair, I say, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, whatever notion you have of idealism, it may be that you just don’t get it.” That is why the Government need to provide the protection in law.

To conclude, I pass on three messages on behalf of many of our 2.2 million veterans who have contacted me to offer support. First, to the esteemed figures who have chosen to unpick the Bill by writing divisive articles for the national media, I regret, you do not speak for me. Secondly, I say to those dishonourable lawyers who have pursued the victims of a witch hunt into their later years, “You need to be struck off.” To my esteemed colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I say, “Please pay heed today, to stay on the right side of this. Unlike the thousands of soldiers I was proud to serve with, your constituents might not be quite so forgiving.” Let us do the right thing for those who have endured so much for so long and put the Bill through.